Ted McConkey and Howard Rothenbach
Given all the confusion over the ROAR voter's initiative, your readers
need to hear our position in the matter.
ROAR believes we are in full compliance with the requirements set
forth in the statutes as to the form of the petition. Those requirements
include a published Notice of Intention in a newspaper of general
circulation and a statement as to notice of intent to circulate the
petition on each page. Both were done.
Another requirement dictates that the identity of the proponents
appear on the petition. The proponent of the initiative is a Political
Action Committee (ROAR) formed and duly registered with the California
Secretary of State. The name, address, telephone number and web site of
ROAR was on each petition. Mr. Barlow argues that our names (e.g.,
Howard's and my own) should have been listed, along with the 100 or more
people who proposed and/or circulated petitions.
We believe that the forming of the Political Action Committee
satisfied that requirement. Significantly, before Mr. Barlow advised Ms.
Sarquiz that she had a "duty" to reject the petitions and the initiative,
neither Ms. Sarquiz nor Mr. Barlow sought an opinion from the California
Secretary of State - the chief elections officer. They unilaterally
refused our efforts (and the signatures of 7,400 plus registered voters)
without requesting a written legal opinion from the state's highest
authority.
Why the indecent haste to reject the initiative?
Mr. Barlow went even further. When asked by council member Laurell for
an opinion on the merits of the initiative - not the form, but the merits
- Mr. Barlow told Laurell that he found unspecified elements of the
initiative legally questionable. In doing so, he echoed the comments of
city manager Bud Ovrom who was quoted in the news media as finding the
initiative "fatally flawed."
Mr. Barlow and Mr. Ovrom had no business making any judgment on the
initiative one way or the other. They were acting far outside the scope
of their official responsibilities and trying to influence the council
and voters against the initiative - voters who will be asked to judge its
merits at the ballot box.
But, of course, both work directly for the city council and can be
expected to want to please their superiors by criticizing the initiative
while enhancing the Framework. Incidentally, has anyone heard Barlow or
Ovrom utter one word in public in honest evaluation of the legality of
the Framework? Even after Jane Garvey told them that several elements
violate federal law and regulations?
As we said at the council meeting Tuesday, ROAR, its supporters, and
the thousands who signed the petition are committed to allowing all
Burbank registered voters decide this issue. Nothing really important
comes easily: All we can do is press ahead, knowing that our cause is the
right one.
We are not going to be deterred simply because of a minor setback
now.
People come and go just as councils and staff come and go. The only
thing that remains constant is principle. If we give up principle for
political expediency, then we will have lost more than simply the battle
over the airport.
We will have lost the ability to think and act for ourselves as our
constitution and laws give us the right to do.
HOWARD ROTHENBACH
ROAR chairman
TED MCCONKEY
ROAR treasurer
